an e-mail to share
On Aug 18, 2004
Hi Charles,
I was thinking of your admonition to vote for Kerry. I wonder what you think he stands for. I am watching alot of what is going on politically and considering my options. When I was younger, I registered to vote as an independent because as my mother says I am somewhat of a maverick. I just don't like to be defined by what my family does and they are staunch democrats. My grandmother used to work for the Kennedy's. Her ghost still hangs over me and my mother when we go to the polling booth. When I registered as an independent, my mother was furious. It was like I was disloyal to her.
(Please click below for rest of letter and Charles' response):
I am watching the race and what is said by the candidates carefully. I just don't want to vote democrat because my family is democrat. Such attitudes like that scare me. So, why do you think John Kerry would be a good president? I have my fears about him. But I have fears about every candidate and you never know how they do until they are in office. I went to help on a campaign once and someone was doing the polling only because they knew someone who knew the candidate. Don't people think anymore? I am such a black sheep! I am not democrat and not catholic and those are the two major things you need to be in my family. I am such a sinner. ha ha ha. But seriously, why do you think John Kerry would be a good president. I am just afraid of laxness on terrorism. I think that the UN was wrong in allowing Saddam to continue. I kept thinking of the memorial in Boston and how nations knew what was happening in Germany during the beginning of the Holocaust and no one did anything. That breaks my heart. I was afraid people would weep over the Iraqis and condemn the fact that no one did anything.
That worries me a lot. And to be honest makes me a bit angry. Anyway, I would like to hear what your thoughts are on the topic. I had a friend Sayeh, who was Iranian and when she was twelve her family defected because when the Ayatollah took over, her father had worked for the Shah. They may have been sent back and faced certain death. So part of my heart is over there, because when Sayeh got sent away, I gave her my address and never heard from her again. I know I am thinking a lot but I want to be assured that whoever is president will not kowtow to popular opinion, but will do what it takes to get rid of a bully and terrorists. I don't want us to be like Spain and have our election dictated by someone who does not live in my country. Doesn't it speak volumes that they are afraid? Don't you think we need someone who takes a firm stance?
Sorry for the long note.
HD
I have said it all in past blogs, HD. If you have time, click on the earlier blogs, going back to the very first ones- before Bush even went to war.
Bush did the right thing at the wrong time, and in the wrong way. That's the simplest way I can put it.
-Charles
Comments
The world may or may not be a better place because we went into Iraq - that is it's own debate. But what worries me (among many things) is that the WMD argument turned out to be a huge mistake and there has been no culpability administration-wide. Great leaders assume resbonsibility for mistakes made by their organization (note that there is a difference between taking blame and taking responsibility). Bush continues to hammer home the intelligence failure argument, but what proactive steps has he taken to correct the issue? If there was such an information breakdown, shouldn't there be some major personnel changes in the chain of intelligence and information? If Hancock or Infinity's CEOs made a business mistake analoguos to Bush's WMD mistake, what would happen to their corproate structure? Would the share holder's stand for it?
Posted by: tblade5000 | August 19, 2004 3:31 AM
I have read that even Bill Clinton stated that Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction. Also in the military, a soldier is considered a weapon. I think that the biggest weapon of Mass Destruction was in fact Saddam. When I was speaking with my former brother in law who is in the military and with all the reading I have done, all militaries consider the soldier a weapon. They consider him the ultimate weapon. After all, the gun is just a piece of metal till someone picks it up and aims it at someone. It's like the saying goes, guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.
Anyway, that is my take on this. I just think that when Clinton stated this, democrats swore that Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction. And I also think that the UN was wrong in their inaction. I looked up the 40 UN resolutions that Saddam was said to have violated and it was appalling how he got away with it for so long. The U.N. had no teeth.
Posted by: Heidi | August 19, 2004 5:13 AM
When it comes to WMD's there is no doubt they existed. Just ask the Kurds!! Following the first Gulf War WMD's were found and scheduled for destruction. Somehow these WMD's disappeared. Were they buried, shipped to Syria or Iran? We don't know at this point. What we do know is that following 10-11 years of inaction by the UN George Bush showed leadership in doing what is best for this country and the World. Before 911 I would have been squeamish about a preemptive War. However following The WTC attack of 1993, Kobar Towers, the USS COLE etc. the heinous attack on Sept 11, 2001 snapped me out of any denial I might have had. Islama Fascism has declared World War lll and it’s a fight to the death. Iraq was as good a place as any to begin to drain the swamp that they live in. President Bush has if nothing else shown leadership during his years in office. The economy is recovering the War is going well, perhaps not as fast as some would like but that’s the way it is, unless you want to break out the Nukes!!
Posted by: Danny | August 19, 2004 7:51 AM
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, PROVIDE for the common defence, PROMOTE the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Demecrats - Promote defence (bad)
Republicans - Provide defence (good)
Demecrats - Provide welfare (bad)
Republicans - Promote welfare (good)
Republicans - provide corp welfare (bad)
Demecrats - TAX the heck out of EVERYBODY - if they didn't take the money in the first place thier would be no money to return in corp welfare. (bad)
Demecrats - Large Federal Government - huge taxation
Rep - Large Federal Government - huge deficits
Deficits are bad unless they are for things such as buildings (i.e. Investments for the FUTURE) not consumables such as WELFARE.
Synonyms
Republicans - conservatives - constitutionalists - righty
Demecrats - liberals - socialists - lefty
I'm a conservative who view the problems of the world as government related. If thier were less government (especially at the Federal Level) we would get much better government. Other countries are allowed to be more socially conscience because of thier size and the fact that WE (The United States of America) pick up the tab for most of thier defence. Programs that might work in Texas will not necessarily work in Rhode Island. Problems need to be solved Locally not Federally.
The Federal Government needs to push things back on the states and stop taxing the people Federally.
Posted by: DOUG | August 19, 2004 11:35 AM
Hey, Doug-
Use spellcheck quick- or someone might take you for a moron.
Posted by: Almond Joy | August 19, 2004 4:08 PM
I am afraid of George Bush.
He got us into a conflict that has been going on for generations, and will continue to do so for many to come. A conflict that has no real end.
We have our boys and girls in a conflict that Arab fighters and Arab governments should be involved in solving.
They hate us. They hate our society, our way of life, our standard of living. Their hate will never dissolve.
They are not going to start a local chapter of Common Cause. They will not organize their own League of Woman Voters. They are not forming lobbying group such as the AARP.
Their society will continue to do what all Mid-Eastern societies are doing this very day.
Bush went in for flawed reasons. That mistake is costing us the lives of our sons and daughters. It is costing us our national energy. And finally, it is costing us our future.
The issues that drive our lives are not found in the sands of the Eastern Hemisphere.
Health care.
Education.
Care for the Elderly.
Social Security.
Homeland Security in the homeland.
Loss of jobs to Globalization.
The future of Stem Cell Research.
Our future.
These are some of the issues we face daily, weekly, and monthly.
Our future, our children's future, their children's future is right here at home.
Let us clean up our Homeland before we go about, with blinders on, cleaning up the rest of the world.
America first John Kerry, don't screw it up.
Posted by: TEN44 | August 19, 2004 4:10 PM
Wow, that Danny guy is scary. He would have loved Hitler's time and theories. If he wants to fight so much why don't we give him a gun and send him over.In fact why not send all of these extremely far right people over to do the fighting if it is fighting we need to do. It would solve 2 problems.........................
Posted by: Willy Weed | August 21, 2004 8:01 AM
I would suggest to H.D. that he (she) might not have the stomach for the perversion of the democratic process we now face. Maybe they should sit this one out and not vote at all. Thinking is o.k. but when you get that emotional about it you're better off joining the peace corps than trying to make sense of this election.
I mean we've got a president who hid out during Viet Nam and his minions are actually attacking the veracity of a guy who won three medals for heroism. Kerry ends up defending himself instead of being able to concentrate the public's attention on his message and we lose. Just look at the nature of the Bush sanctioned ads, tells you everything you need to know about who we DON"T want to see in the White House again.
Posted by: zircon john | August 21, 2004 11:03 AM